REPRESENTATION  IN  CONGRESS. 


SPEECH 


•  i 

OF 


HON.  RICHARD  YATES 


OF  ILLINOIS, 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


JUNE  11,  1868. 


WASHINGTON: 

F.  &  J.  RIVES  &  GEO.  A.  BAILEY, 

REPORTERS  AND  PRINTERS  OF  THE  DERATES  OF  CONGRESS. 

1868. 


V 


© 


i 


<9 


vic'vnmrte  ' 


; 


951  P 


m,  H'SK 


32Y-&30 

ys?r  • 


/ 

REPRESENTATION  IN  CONGRESS. 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  themotion 
to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  (II.  R. 
No.  1058)  to  admit  the  States  of  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Louisiana,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida, 
to  representation  in  Congress — 

Mr.  YATES  said  : 

Mr.  President  :  The  war  through  which 
the  country  has  passed  and  its  incidents  have 
waked  up  a  new  spirit  of  inquiry  into  the 
powers  of  the  Constitution,  the  relative  powers 
of  the  General  Government  and  of  the  States, 
of  the  President  and  of  Congress.  It  seems 
that  the  doctrine  of  State  rights  or  State  sov¬ 
ereignty,  which  was  undoubtedly  the  father 
of  secession  and  the  cause  of  the  war,  and 
which,  upon  the  construction  given  to  it  by 
the  Democratic  party,  is  certainly  the  gateway 
to  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  is  now  re¬ 
vived.  and  Senators  even  on  this  side  of  the 
Senate  seem  to  give  color  to  the  dangerous 
pretension  that  it  is  settled  that  the  States  are 
sovereign  in  the  power  to  limit  the  right  of 
suffrage  to  as  many  or  as  few  of  the  people  as 
in  their  discretion  they  may  deem  proper. 

Mr.  President,  I  declare  myself  opposed  to 
that  sort  of  logic  which  opposes  every  measure 
of  reform  upon  the  ground  that  “the  question 
is  settled.”  Moreover,  I  am  not  in  favor 
of  applying  the  precedents  of  slavery  to  the 
altered  state  of  things  brought  about  in  this 
country  by  emancipation.  In  advocating  the 
cause  of  human  rights  I  do  not  like  to  have  a 
merely  legal  plea  interposed,  a  special  demur¬ 
rer,  a  musty  precedent  brought  up  to  prevent 
the  saving  action  of  Congress  for  a  wholesome 
and  permanent  reconstruction  of  the  Union. 

Sir,  I  do  not  decry  precedents.  I  belong  to 
the  profession  of  the  law,  and  I  am  proud  to 
..be  a  member  of  that  profession.  I  know,  how¬ 
ever,  that  precedents  are  as  useful  sometimes 
to  show  the  errors  of  the  past,  as  they  are  as 
examples  for  our  imitation. 

Slavery  was  once  the  rule  and  freedom  the 
exception,  and  whatever  else  might  be  dis¬ 
turbed,  slavery  was  sacred.  All  constitutions, 
laws,  and  usages  were  to  bow  submissively 
before  the  Moloch  of  slavery.  Even  the  good 


Lincoln — who  was  a  radical  anti-slavery  man, 
and  who  said  if  anything  was  wrong  slavery  was 
wrong — said  it  was  no  part  of  the  war  to  interfere 
with  slavery,  and  up  to  the  beginning,  and 
during  the  war,  statesmen  denounced  it  apolo¬ 
getically.  Even  Congress  raised  a  rampart  for 
its  protection  by  an  apologetic  resolution  that 
it  could  not  be  interfered  with,  and  that  it  was 
no  part  or  purpose  of  the  war  to  put  it  down. 
Behind  the  parapets  of  judicial  decisions,  and 
clothed  with  the  imperial  panoply  of  law  and 
precedent,  it  stood  impregnably  and  defiantly 
secure.  The  cry  from  all  the  hustings  was  ‘  ‘the 
question  is  settled.” 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  perished  with  the 
rebellion.  Brightest  among  the  trophies  of  the 
war  is  slavery  destroyed  and  the  supremacy  of 
the  slave  power  annihilated.  In  America,  all, 
thank  God,  are  free. 

And  yet,  sir,  when  the  proposition  is  intro¬ 
duced  here  to  append  a  fundamental  condition 
to  the  admission  of  a  State,  and  that  funda¬ 
mental  condition  is  to  be  in  aid  of  human  rights, 
we  are  told  that  that  is  an  old  question,  and  has 
long  been  settled. 

We  now  have  a  new  rule.  Freedom  is  now 
the  rule,  and  slavery  the  exception.  It  is  now 
settled  that  all  constitutions,  laws,  usages,  and 
precedents,  andallconstructionsagainst  human 
liberty,  are  but  cobwebs,  to  be  swept  away,  in 
the  march  of  events,  with  the  institution  of 
slavery  in  aid  of  which  they  were  set  up  and 
established.  Whatever  may  be  the  precedents 
or  the  rule  of  construction  heretofore,  it  is  now 
settled  that  all  future  constructions  are  to  be 
given  in  favor  of  liberty  and  the  extension  of 
the  rights  of  all  men. 

How  long  will  it  take  statesmen  to  learn  that 
nothing  is  to  be  considered  as  settled  which  is 
not  settled  upon  the  principles  of  right,  truth, 
justice,  and  liberty? 

The  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Buck- 
alew]  says  that,  as  “  this  question  has  been 
settled  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government 
to  the  present  time,  surely  no  man  can  be  hardy 
enough  to  question  it.”  My  colleague  [Mr. 
Trumbull]  says  that  all  such  conditions  are 
inoperative  and  void. 


4 


Mr.  President,  when  the  other  day  I  referred 
to  some  illustrations  showing  the  applicability 
of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  of  the  Missouri 
compromise  of  1820,  the  Senator  from  New 
York  [Mr.  Conkling]  said  I  was  exceedingly 
unlucky  in  introducing  those  precedents.  Sir, 
the  bad  luck  is  on  his  side.  The  bad  luck  is 
on  the  side  of  any  man  who  now,  in  the  altered 
state  of  things  in  this  day  of  emancipation, 
casts  his  vote  against  a  fundamental  condition 
by  which  the  rights  of  every  American  citizen 
are  recognized  and  secured.  Suppose  that 
condition  was  inoperative,  as  the  Senator  from 
Nevada  [Mr.  Stewart]  very  justly  asked, 
‘■what  harm  could  there  be  in  it?”  Would 
it  weaken  the  Constitution  to  require  the  peo¬ 
ple,  through  their  Legislature,  to  give  their 
assent  to  such  a  condition?  Such  consent 
would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  compact,  and  the 
idea  of  good  faith  would  enter  into  it,  to  last 
during  all  the  generations  of  the  people  of  the 
State.  The  word  of  a  great  State  must  be 
kept.  With  a  bad  grace  could  the  State  ever 
attempt  to  alter  this  great  fundamental  corner¬ 
stone  of  the  institutions  of  the  State. 

Mr.  President,  upon  the  subject  of  the  power 
to  impose  these  conditions  the  argument  of  the 
Senator  from  Vermont  [Mr.  Edmunds]  has  not 
been  answered,  and  cannot  be  answered.  The 
precedents  which  he  offered  are  to  the  point, 
and  they  sustain  the  power  of  Congress  over 
the  subject.  I  shall  be  able  to  show,  during  this 
argument,  that  every  Senator  who  has  voted  for 
imposing  this  condition  upon  Nebraska  and 
upon  Alabama  has  positively  committed  him¬ 
self  to  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  question 
of  suffrage  in  all  the  States.  Senators  may  as 
well  consider  this.  They  are  committed  to  the 
principle  ;  their  mouths  are  closed  ;  they  can¬ 
not  explain  away  this  committal;  no  technical 
quibbles  will  avail  them.  You  cannot  say  by 
your  votes  that  the  State  shall  never  have  power 
to  change  its  constitution  in  regard  to  suffrage, 
and  yet  say  that  Congress  has  not  the  power 
over  the  question  of  suffrage  in  the  States. 
Every  Senator  upon  this  floor  who  has  com¬ 
mitted  himself  by  his  vote  in  favor  of  imposing 
a  condition  preventing  the  States  from  changing 
their  constitution  so  as  to  exclude  a  large  por¬ 
tion  of  the  people  from  suffrage  has  asserted 
the  power  of  Congress,  the  unlimited  power 
of  Congress,  over  the  subject  of  suffrage  in  the 
States.  And  it  will  not  do  at  all  for  Senators, 
when  they,  by  their  votes,  have  appended  to 
the  Nebraska  and  Colorado  bills  a  fundamental 
condition  prohibiting  those  States  from  disfran¬ 
chising  their  citizens,  to  say  now  that  it  has  been 
settled  that  Congress  has  no  power  over  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  suffrage. 

But,  sir,  I  referred  to  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
not  simply  because  Congress  had  the  power 
to  pass  that  ordinance,  but  to  show  the  salu¬ 
tary  effects  of  fundamental  conditions,  such 
as  the  bill  before  us  proposes,  on  the  future 
of  a  State.  What  I  asserted  was,  that  the 
ordinance  of  1787  did  keep  slavery  out  of  the 


Northwestern  Territory.  Those  five  States, 
which  were  carved  out  of  the  Northwestern 
Territory,  would  have  been  slave  States,  inevit¬ 
ably  slave  States,  but  for  the  effect  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787.  The  slave  emigration 
which  went  to  Missouri  would,  at  least  one  half 
of  it,  have  gone  to  Illinois  and  the  other  west¬ 
ern  States  ;  and  instead  of  this  ordinance  being 
inoperative,  as  contended  by  the  Senator 
from  New  York,  it  was  regarded  as  having 
almost  the  sanction  ofa  constitutional  provision. 
All  petitions  to  Congress  to  suspend  the  opera¬ 
tions  of  the  ordinance,  even  temporarily, 
failed.  It  is  a  historical  fact  that  slave-owners 
who  emigrated  to  Illinois  in  many  instances 
hired  out  their  slaves  in  Missouri,  fearing  that 
if  taken  to  Illinois,  they  would  become  free  by 
operation  of  the  ordinance.  So  troublesome 
did  the  slaves  hired  out  in  Missouri,  by  resi¬ 
dents  of  Illinois,  become,  that  the  Legislature 
of  Missouri,  not  being  able  to  reach  the  owners, 
passed  a  law,  making  the  resident  agents  of  the 
owners  responsible  for  the  mischiefs  they  com- 
|  mitted. 

When  the  people  of  Illinois  came  to  adopt 
i  their  constitution,  they  declared  in  thepreamble, 
that  it  was  made  consistent  with  the  ordinance 
of  1787,  and  provided  in  the  constitution 
against  the  future  existence  of  slavery  in  the 
j  State.  All  efforts  to  amend  the  constitution 
;  so  as  to  admit  slavery,  failed.  All  that  has 
been  said  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  I 
say,  that  the  people  held  in  high  estimation 
this  condition  prohibiting  slavery.  As  they 
regarded  the  title  to  their  homesteads  ;  as  they 
regarded  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ;  as 
they  regarded  their  right  to  worship  God  ; 
so  they  regarded  that  ordinance,  which  made 
i  their  prairies  the  home  of  freemen,  aud  which 
dedicated  the  Northwestern  Territory  to  free- 
;  dom  and  free  institutions. 

And  sir,  what  has  been  the  effect?  Under 
'  that  ordinance  those  five  Territories  became 
j  free  States,  and  the  power  of  this  continent  is 
there  ;  they  are  running  their  race  to  glory,  and 
inspired  by  the  energizing  power  of  free  labor 
and  free  institutions  they  have  taken  their  posi¬ 
tion,  and  already  of  themselves,  constitute  an 
empire. 

When  I  referred  to  the  Missouri  compro¬ 
mise,  I  did  it  to  show  that  that  compromise  had 
the  effect  to  keep  slavery  out  of  the  territory 
north  of  the  parallel  of  36°  30'  north  latitude. 
Will  any  Senator  deny  that,  in  the  absence  of 
that  ordinance,  slavery  would  have  entered 
into  those  Territories,  under  the  State- rights 
doctrine  that  slave  property  could  go,  under 
the  constitution  and  the  laws,  into  any  State  or 
Territory  of  the  United  States  ?  That  compro¬ 
mise  you  may  now  call  a  foolish  thing ;  but 
j  the  Senator  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Johnson] 

'  will  remember  that  Mr.  Clay  said  of  it,  the 
|  bells  rang,  the  cannons  were  fired,  and  every 
demonstration  of  joy  was  made  throughout  the 
Republic,  on  account  of  the  passage  of  the 
Missouri  compromise.  You  remember  Mr. 


5 


Douglas  said,  though  afterward  he  attempted 
to  break  it  down  :  “  That  it  was  a  compromise 
akin  to  the  Constitution  ;  that  it  had  its  origin  in 
the  hearts  of  patriotic  men  of  all  sections  of  the 
country,  and  was  canonized  in  the  hearts  of 
the  American  people  as  a  sacred  thing,  which 
no  ruthless  hand  would  ever  dare  to  disturb.” 
This  was  the  effect  of  that  compromise.  Sla¬ 
very  could  not  enter  that  Territory.  This  com¬ 
promise  stood  as  a  wall  against  slave  immigra¬ 
tion,  and  protected  those  Territories  from  the 
blighting  curse  of  human  bondage. 

It  is  said  by  the  gentlemen  who  contend  that 
these  fundamental  conditions  are  null  and  void, 
that  the  condition  which  was  imposed  on  Mis¬ 
souri  in  1821  was  all  right  enough.  It  seems 
that  in  the  adoption  of  her  constitution,  one 
clause  excluded  the  immigration  of  free  ne¬ 
groes  into  the  State.  Congress  put  a  condition 
in  the  act  of  admission  which  provided,  that 
nothing  in  that  clause  should  be  so  construed 
as  to  interfere  with,  or  deprive  citizens  of  the 
United  States  of  their  rights.  This  it  is  admit¬ 
ted  was  a  good  condition,  and  why?  Because 
it  prevented  the  State  of  Missouri  ever  after¬ 
ward  from  violating  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  by  the  exclusion  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  from  entering  that  State. 
Now,  sir,  our  argument  is  this:  that  this  con¬ 
dition,  which  we  offer  to  impose  upon  the 
States  which  are  to  be  restored  to  their  full 
relations  in  this  Union,  is  to  prevent  the  State 
from  violating  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  in  that  most  important  and  vital  of  all 
points,  the  depriving  a  whole  race  of  their 
right  of  suffrage,  and  other  rights  under  the 
Constitution. 

The  doctrine  for  which  I  contend  is,  that 
Congress  has  the  right  and  the  power  to 
enforce  by  laws  “  necessary  and  proper,”  in 
the  language  of  the  Constitution,  a  republican 
government  in  every  State  of  the  U nited  States, 
whether  that  State  is  to  be  received  into  the 
Union,  or  is  already  in  the  Union.  The  power 
to  establish  republican  governments  devolves 
upon  Congress  in  the  last  resort.  In  the  first 
instance,  it  may  be  committed  to  the  States ; 
but  Congress  has  the  revisory  power.  Con¬ 
gress,  under  the  Constitution,  is  required  to 
guaranty  to  every  State  in  the  Union  a  repub¬ 
lican  form  of  government.  Then  the  conclud¬ 
ing  clause  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  first 
article  of  the  Constitution  declares,  that  Con¬ 
gress  shall  fijive  authority  to  carry  into  effect 
all  the  enumerated  powers  of  the  Constitution, 
by  passing  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  that 
purpose,  and  also  shall  have-  power  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into 
effect  any  power  vested  in  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  or  in  any  department  or 
officer  thereof.  The  power  is  vested  in,  and 
the  duty  imposed  upon,  Congress  of  guaranty¬ 
ing  to  each  State,  a  republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment,  and  Congress  is  authorized,  and,  in  fact, 
required,  by  necessary  and  proper  laws,  to 
carry  into  execution  that  guarantee. 


This  doctrine  is  not  at  all  startling  when 
Senators  look  at  the  ground  whereon  they 
stand,  and  see  how  they  have  already  commit¬ 
ted  themselves,  and  consider  what  immeas¬ 
urable  benefits  will  flow  to  the  people  of  this 
country,  by  settling  the  question  of  slavery  and 
all  its  incidents  by  taking  the  question  of  suf¬ 
frage  out  of  the  arena  of  American  politics, 
by  settling  it  upon  principles  just  and  fair  to 
every  section  of  the  Union,  by  placing  each 
State  upon  an  equal  footing  with  every  other 
State,  and  each  citizen  of  the  United  States 
upon  an  equal  footing  with  every  other  citizen 
of  the  United  States.  Sir,  when  this  doctrine 
can  be  sustained  upon  such  clear  demonstra¬ 
tion,  it  ought  not  to  startle  Senators. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  said  sarcastically, 
that  upon  this  question,  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner]  is  radical.  It  is 
said  to  me,  that  I  follow  in  the  wake  of  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts.  Sir,  I  do  not 
follow  in  any  man’s  wake  ;  but  I  do  not  object 
to  this  accusation.  I  do  not  deem  it  a  reproach 
to  be  a  disciple  of  that  distinguished  Senator, 
the  worthy  representative  of  that  grand  old 
Commonwealth  “  where  American  liberty 
raised  its  first  voice.” 

For  a  quarter  of  a  century  that  Senator  [Mr. 
Sumner]  has  been  the  fearless  champion  of 
human  rights.  He  has  occupied  the  advanced 
guard,  the  outpost  in  the  army  of  progress. 
Triumphant  over  calumny  and  unawed  by 
personal  violence,  with  a  keen,  prophetic  eye 
upon  the  great  result  to  be  attained,  with 
the  scimeter  of  truth  and  justice  in  his  hand, 
and  the  banner  of  the  Union  over  his  head, 
he  has  pressed  onward  to  the  goal  of  final 
victory.  Although  yet  in  the  vigor  of  his 
manhood,  he  has  lived  to  seethe  small  band  of 
pioneers  who  stood  by  him  swollen  to  mighty 
millions.  His  views  have  already  been  embraced 
and  lauded  as  the  wisest  statesmanship.  They 
have  been  written  upon  the  very  frontispiece 
of  the  age  in  which  he  lives;  written  in  the 
history  of  the  mighty  events  which  are  trans¬ 
piring  around  us  ;  written  in  the  constitutions 
and  the  laws,  both  national  and  State,  of  his 
country.  Where  he  stood  yesterday  other 
statesmen  stand  to-day.  Where  he  stands  in 
1868  other  statesmen  will  stand  in  1872.  Say 
what  we  may,  thereare  none  in  this  country  who 
can  contest  the  right  of  his  tall  plume  to  wave 
at  the  head  of  freedom’s  all-conquering  hosts. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  it  understood  that  I  do 
not  antagonize  the  Chicago  platform.  The 
ground  that  I  take  is  in  entire  accord  and  har¬ 
mony  with  it.  That  platform  says  what  I  do, 
that  the  question  of  suffrage  belongs  to  the 
States — so  I  say,  that  the  question  of  suffrage 
belongs  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  States,  but 
if  the  States  shall  in  prescribing  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  of  voters  so  prescribe  them  as  to  disfran¬ 
chise  a  portion  of  citizens  arbitrarily,  and  thus 
render  the  government  anti-republican,  then 
Congress  is  required  to  intervene  and  make  it  a 
republican  form  of  government. 


6 


I  confess  that  recent  events,  and  especially 
the  course  of  President  Johnson,  have  satisfied 
me  that  too  much  reliance  is  not  to  be  placed 
upon  mere  paper  edicts  which  we  style  plat¬ 
forms.  Measures,  not  men,  was  once  the  doc¬ 
trine,  but  my  doctrine  now  is :  both  men  and 
measures.  A  good  platform  in  the  hands  of 
bad  men  is  of  not  much  avail.  With  men  of 
the  unquestioned  integrity,  wise  statesmanship, 
and  lofty  patriotism  of  Grant  and  Colfax,  we 
can  trust  the  helm  of  the  ship  of  State,  and  feel 
secure  that  no  narrow  creeds,  but  the  good  of 
the  people  and  the  prosperity  of  the  Republic, 
will  be  the  pillars  of  fire  to  lead  and  guide  them 
in  the  administration  of  the  Government. 

I  consider  myself  fortunate  in  being  able  to 
sustain  the  view  of  the  case  I  have  taken,  by 
the  strong  authority  of  Mr.  Madison,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Debates  of  the  Virginia  Convention,  page 
261: 

“With  respect  to  the  other  point  it  was  thought 
that  the  regulation  of  time,  place,  and  manner  of 
electing  the  Representatives  should  be  uniform 
throughout  the  continent.  Some  States  might  regu¬ 
late  the  elections  on  the  principles  of  equality,  and 
others  might  regulate  them  otherwise.  The  diversity 
would  he  obviously  unjust.  Elections  are  regulated 
unequally  now  in  some  of  the  States,  particularly  in 
South  Carolina,  with  respect  to  Charleston  which  is 
represented  by  thirty  members.  Should  the  people 
of  any  State  by  any  means  be  deprived  of  the  right 
of  suffrage  it  was  proper  that  it  should  be  remedied 
by  the  General  Government.  It  was  found  impossi¬ 
ble  to  fix  the  time,  place,  and  manner  of  the  election 
of  Representativesin  the  Constitution.  It  was  found 
necessary  to  leave  the  regulation  of  these  in  the  first 
place  to  the  State  governments,  as  being  best  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  situation  of  the  people,  subject  to 
the  control  of  the  General  Government,  in  order  to 
enable  it  to  produce  uniformity  and  prevent  its  own 
dissolution.  And  considering  the  State  government 
and  General  Government  as  different  bodies,  acting 
in  different  and  independent  capacities,  it  was 
thought  the  particular  regulations  should  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  former  and  the  general  regulations  to 
the  latter.  Were  they  exclusively  under  the  control 
of  the  State  governments,  the  General  Government 
might  easily  be  dissolved.  But  if  they  be  regulated 
properly  by  the  State  Legislatures,  the  congressional 
control  will  very  probably  never  be  exercised.” 

I  add  to  this  the  declarations  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  set  forth  in  the  following  extract 
from  the  Federalist,  paper  ^To.  69  : 

“  It  will,  I  presume,  be  as  readily  conceded,  that 
there  were  only  three  ways  in  which  this  power 
could  have  been  reasonably  organized  ;  that  it  must 
either  have  been  lodged  wholly  in  the  national  Legis¬ 
lature,  or  wholly  in  the  State  Legislatures,  or  primar¬ 
ily  in  the  latter,  and  ultimately  in  the  former.  The 
last  mode  has  with  reason  been  preferred  by  the  con¬ 
vention.  They  have  submitted  the  regulation  of 
elections  for  the  Federal  Government  in  the  first 
instance,  to  the  local  administrations  ;  which  in  ordi¬ 
nary  cases,  and  where  no  improper  views  prevail, 
maybe  both  more  convenient  and  more  satisfactory ; 
but  they  have  reserved  to  the  national  authority  a 
right  to  interfere,  whenever  extraordinary  circum¬ 
stances  might  render  that  interposition  necessary  to 
its  safety. 

“ Nothing  can  he  more  evident  than  that  an  exclu¬ 
sive  power  of  regulating  elections  for  the  national 
Government ,  in  the  hands  of  the  State  Legislatures , 
would  leave  the  existence  of  the  Union  entirely  at 
their  mercy.  They  could  at  any  moment  annihilate 
it  by  neglecting  to  provide  for  the  choice  of  persons 
to  administer  its  affairs.  It  is  to  little  purpose  to 
say,  that  a  neglect  or  omission  of  this  kind  would 
not  be  likely  to  take  place.  The  constitutional  im¬ 
possibility  of  the  thing,  without  an  equivalent  for 


the  risk,  is  an  unanswerable  objection.  Nor  has  any 
satisfactory  reason  been  yet  assigned  for  incurring 
that  risk.  The  extravagant  surmises  of  a  distem¬ 
pered  jealousy  can  never  be  dignified  with  that 
character.  If  we  are  in  humor  to  presume  abuses 
of  power,  it  is  as  fair  to  presume  them  on  the  part 
of  the  State  governments  as  on  the  part  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Government.  And  as  it  is  more  consonant  to 
the  rules  of  a  just  theory  to  intrust  the  Union  with 
the  care  of  its  own  existence,  than  to  transfer  that 
care  to  any  other  hands;  if  abuses  of  power  are  to  be 
hazarded  on  the  one  side  or  on  the  other,  it  is  more 
rational  to  hazard  them  where  the  power  would 
naturally  be  placed,  than  where  it  would  unnatur¬ 
ally  be  placed.” 

I  shall  embody  in  my  speech,  the  positions 
assumed  by  Senators  on  this  floor.  For  instance, 
I  refer  to  the  position  which  was  taken  by  the 
Senator  from  Indiana,  [Mr.  Morton,]  who  said 
a  day  or  two  since  : 

“  I  contend  that  every  State  has  the  right  to  regu¬ 
late  the  question  of  suffrage  and  to  amend  her  con¬ 
stitution  in  any  particular  from  time  to  time,  so  that 
it  does  not  cease  to  be  republican  in  its  character. 

“Mr.  Edmunds.  Who  is  to  judge  of  that? 

“  Mr.  Morton.  I  suppose  that  is  a  question  to  be 
judged  of  by  Congress.” 

Suppose  the  State  fails  to  establish  a  govern¬ 
ment  republican  in  its  character,  what  then? 
Who  is  to  judge  whether  it  is  republican  or  anti¬ 
republican?  u  I  suppose,”  said  he,  “that  is  a 
question  to  be  judged  of  by  Congress.”  My 
colleague,  [Mr.  Trumbull,]  while  he  asserts 
the  exclusive  power  in  the  States  over  the  suf¬ 
frage  question,  still  admits  enough  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  this  argument: 

“  ‘Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof.’  When 
the  times  comes  that  any  of  the  States  of  this  Union 
so  change  their  constitutions  as  to  set  up  something 
different  from  a  republican  government,  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  may  interfere.” 

He  and  I  may  differ  as  to  what  may  be  a 
republican  form  of  government,  but  that  he 
commits  himself  to  the  power  of  Congress  to 
intervene,  in  case  the  State  government  is  not 
republican,  is,  I  think,  to  be  inferred  from  his 
speech. 

He  says  further : 

“  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  what  steps  should  bo 
taken  in  case  the  State  of  Nebraska  should  hereafter 
change  its  constitution,  and  in  that  change  adopt  a 
different  rule  in  regard  to  suffrage  from  that  which 
was  recognized  at  the  time  the  State  was  admitted. 
Perhaps  we  could  find  some  way  to  compel  the  State 
of  Nebraska  to  allow  the  same  persons  to  vote  that  it 
agreed  it  would  allow  to  vote  when  it  was  admitted 
into  the  Union  ;  but  we  should  have  to  find  that  way 
out  then;  we  cannot  provide  for  it  now.” 

He  acknowledges  that  perhaps  there  is  power 
somewhere,  in  cases  of  failure  on  the  part  of 
the  State  to  comply  with  the  condition,  and  I 
assert,  you  cannot  trace  it  to  any  source  except 
Congress.  The  remarks  of  other  Senators  go 
to  show  that  t'hey  admit  that  this  revisory 
power  is  in  Congress.  I  read  from  the  same 
debate,  the  views  taken  by  the  Senator  from 
Nevada  [Mr.  Stewart]  and  the  Senator  from 
New  York,  [Mr.  Conkling:] 

“Mr.  Stewart.  Wo  do  not  pretend  to  determine 
at  what  point  Congress  should  interfere  under  the 
authority  of  the  guarantee  clause.  That  will  be  for 
a  future  Congress  when  the  question  comes  up.  That 
there  are  times  when  it  should  interfere  the  Senator 
from  New  York  now  admits. 


7 


“Mr.  Conkling.  Certainly. 

“Mr.  Stewart.  Every  man  who  reads  the  Con¬ 
stitution  must  admit  that  there  may  be  times  when 
the  Congress  should  interfere  upon  tho  question  ol 
suffrage.” 

Now,  sir,  here  these  Senators,  who  have 
asserted  that  the  exclusive  power  over  suffrage 
is  in  the  States,  admit  away  their  whole  case. 
They  admit  fully  the  power  of  Congress  to 
revise  the  action  of  the  States  upon  the  suf¬ 
frage  question.  The  right  to  exercise  the  power 
is  clearly  admitted.  Whether  it  shall  exercise 
the  power  to  pass  all  laws  which  are  necessary 
and  proper  to  carry  into  execution  this  clause 
of  guaranty,  depends  upon  whether  the  State 
government  is  a  republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment.  That  is  the  question. 

On  the  22d  day  of  January,  1866,  I  intro¬ 
duced  a  'bill  into  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  and  defended  it  in  a  speech  of  consid¬ 
erable  length,  in  which  I  took  the  position  that 
Congress  had  this  revisory  power,  and  that 
wherever  a  State  had  an  anti-republican  gov¬ 
ernment,  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress  to  inter¬ 
fere  and  make  it  a  republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment;  and  I  am  glad  to  be  supported  in  that 
view  now,  by  such  distinguished  authorities  as 
the  Senators  whose  remarks  I  have  quoted.  If 
that  bill  had  then  become  a  law,  by  this  time, 
no  vestige  of  this  question  would  be  left  to  dis¬ 
turb  the  harmony  of  the  nation. 

I  quote  from  the  speech  of  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner]  March  7,  1866, 
which  will  show  that  I  was  in  advance  even  of 
him  for  congressional  legislation  for  suffrage 
in  the  South  as  well  as  the  North: 

“Something  has  been  said  of  the  form  in  which 
the  proposition  has  been  presented.  There  is  the  bill 
of  the  Senator  from  Illinois,  [Mr.  Yates,]  which  he 
has  maintained  in  aspeech  of  singular  originality  and 
power,  that  has  not  been  answered,  and  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  cannot  be  answered.  By  this  bill  it  is 
provided  that  all  citizens  in  any  State  or  Territory 
shall  be  protected  in  the  full  and  equal  enjoyment 
and  exercise  of  their  civil  and  political  rights,  in¬ 
cluding  the  right  of  suffrage.” 

“  Not  doubting  the  power  of  Congress  to  carry  out 
this  principle  everywhere  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States,  I  content  myself  for  the  present 
by  asserting  it  only  in  the  lapsed  States  lately  in 
rebellion,  where  the  twofold  duty  to  guaranty  a 
republican  government  and  to  enforce  the  abolition 
of  slavery  is  beyond  question.  To  that  extent  I  now 
urge  it.” 

Now,  I  come  to  consider  the  clauses  of  the 
Constitution  affecting  the  question  of  the  power 
of  Congress,  or  the  States,  over  the  question  of 
suffrage.  My  friend  from  Kentucky  [Mr. 
Davis]  thinks  that  the  whole  gospel  of  the 
Constitution  is  contained  in  chapter  ten  of  the 
amendments,  which  provides  that — 

“  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by 
the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  ■ 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively  or  to  the 
people.” 

Unfortunately  for  his  position,  this  power  to 
guaranty  republican  governments  is  “dele-  j 
gated  to  the  United  States,”  and  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  says,  that  wherever  a  power  is  vested  by  j 
the  Constitution,  in  the  Government  of  the  Uni-  I 


ted  States,  Congress  shall  execute  that  power. 
I  quote  the  clause  : 

“Art.  1.  Certain  powers  having  been  enumerated, 
these  words  follow  in  section  eight:  ‘To  make  ali 
laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carry¬ 
ing  into  execution  tho  foregoing  powers,  and  all 
other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  department 
or  o  dicer  thereof.’” 

Thus  it  is  seen,  that  it  is  for  Congress  to  carry 
into  effect  the  various  powers  vested  in  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  How  is 
Congress  to  do  this?  By  all  laws  necessary 
and  proper  to  that  end. 

The  thing  is  very  plain.  We  see  that  the 
same  clause  which  authorizes  Congress  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  the  enu¬ 
merated  powers  into  effect,  says,  that  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  pass  all  necessary  and 
proper  laws  to  carry  into  effect  “  all  other 
powers”  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States. 

I  say,  then,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress,  to 
do  what  I  propose:  by  a  necessary  and  proper 
law,  to  guaranty  to  every  State  in  the  Union,  a 
republican  form  of  government.  Article  four, 
section  four,  of  the  Constitution  is  as  follows  : 

“  The  United  States  fhall  guaranty  to  every  State 
in  the  Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  and 
shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion;  and  on 
application  of  the  Legislature  or  of  the  Executive 
(when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against 
domestic  violence.” 

A  guarantor  is  one  who  undertakes  to  do  a 
thing,  which  another  has  undertaken  to  do,  pro¬ 
vided  that  other  fails.  Now,  suppose  South 
Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  should  in  its  con¬ 
stitution  insert  the  word  “  black”  before  the 
word  “inhabitants,”  so  as  to  provide  that  “all 
black  inhabitants  shall  be  electors,”  would 
Congress  intervene?  Would  Congress,  having 
the  power  to  guaranty  republican  forms  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  sit  still,  and  see  white  citizens  ex¬ 
cluded  from  the  suffrage  by  the  constitution  of 
South  Carolina  ?  Does  any  Senator  dare  to 
answer  categorically  “Yes”  to  that  propo¬ 
sition?  I  should  like  to  see  the  Senator  who 
is  bold  enough  to  answer  it  in  that  way.  Ken¬ 
tucky  says  that  her  electors  shall  be  all  white 
inhabitants,  and  she  excludes  every  other  than 
the  white  race.  Maryland  does  the  same  thing, 
and  Illinois  does  the  same  thing.  Will  you 
intervene,  will  you  exercise  the  power  conferred 
on  you  by  the  Constitution,  or  will  you  bow 
ignobly  to  the  prejudice  of  caste  and  race? 
Will  you  decline  to  intervene  where  black  peo¬ 
ple  are  excluded,  and  intervene  where  white 
people  are  excluded  ? 

Mr.  President,  if  we  had  expended  the  time 
to  find  out  power  in  the  Constitution,  for  Con¬ 
gress  to  confer  upon  men  their  rights,  and  to 
establish  and  preserve  a  republican  form  of 
government,  if  we  had  examined  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  closely  and  critically  with  a  view  to  find 
out  this  power,  instead  of  trying  to  find  that 
Congress  has  not  the  power  to  guaranty  a 
republican  form  of  government,  by  securing 
to  all  men  their  rights,  we  should  have  beeu 


8 


more  successful.  For  instance,  take  section 
two  of  article  one.  This  is  the  groundwork  of 
the  claim  of  exclusive  State  jurisdiction  over 
the  question  of  suffrage.  It  is  as  follows : 

“The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed 
of  members  chosen  every  second  year  by  the  people 
of  the  several  States;  and  the  electors  in  each  State 
shall  have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of 
the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  Legislature.” 

If  the  States  have  exclusive  power  over  this 
question  they  get  it  from  that  section  of  the 
Constitution.  How  do  they  get  it  from  this 
section?  According  to  the  construction  of  the 
Senator  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  Doolittle]  they 
get  it  by  implication,  in  this  way  :  it  provides 
that  the  Legislatures  shall  be  chosen  by  the 
people  of  the  State,  and  these  same  people 
who  choose  members  of  the  Legislature,  are 
made  the  electors  of  Representatives  in  Con¬ 
gress.  Is  there  any  more  implication  in  favor 
of  the  exercise  of  the  power  in  this  clause  by 
the  Legislatures  of  the  States,  than  there  is 
implication  in  favor  of  the  exercise  of  the 
power  by  Congress  itself?  It  may  be  said  to 
me,  “  Surely  you  would  not  contend  that  Con¬ 
gress  should  declare  who  shall  elect  members 
of  the  State  Legislature.”  I  would  not;  I 
would  not  think  that  very  appropriate  ;  I  would 
not  think  it  was  doing  the  thing  in  the  right 
way  exactly.  But  is  it  more  appropriate,  that 
the  Legislature  shall  decide  who  are  to  vote 
for  members  of  the  Legislature,  “than  that  Con¬ 
gress  should  say  who  are  to  vote  for  members 
of  Congress?  With  much  propriety  can  I 
say,  that  Congress  shall  define  the  rights  and 
qualifications  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  sake  of  uniformity  in  C'tizenship, 
and  as  a  matter  of  self-national  preservation, 
and  not  leave  the  question,  who  shall  be  citi¬ 
zens  of  the  United  States  to  thirty- six  different 
States,  and  have  as  many  different  standards  <> 
of  citizenship  as  there  are  States  in  the  Union. 
But,  sir,  I  waive  this  view  of  the  case,  because 
the  uniform  construction  has  been  that  the 
question  belonged  to  the  States  in  the  first 
instance,  and  I  do  not  propose  now,  to  question 
that  construction. 

But  this  section  of  the  Constitution  says  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed 
of  members  “  chosen  every  second  year.”  By 
whom?  “  By  the  people.”  Suppose  that  any 
State  constitution  says  that  a  part  of  the  people 
shall  not  be  embraced  in  choosing  Representa¬ 
tives  ;  suppose  it  excludes  any  particular  class : 
is  not  that  State  in  conflict  with  this  provision 
of  this  Constitution,  because  all  the  people  are 
not  represented,  and  are  not  consulted  in  choos¬ 
ing  their  Representatives?  There  can  be  no 
mistake  upon  this  point.  Members  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature,  and  members  of  Congress  are  to  be 
chosen  “  by  the  people.”  The  “people”  in 
each  case  are  to  be  the  electors ;  and  those 
who  vote  for  members  of  Congress,  are  to  have 
the  same  qualifications  as  the  electors  of  the 
most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  Legisla¬ 
ture. 


Most  clearly,  if  the  Constitution  of  a  State, 
or  the  laws  of  a  Legislature,  so  fix  the  qualifi¬ 
cations  of  voters  as  to  exclude  any  portion  of 
the  people  on  the  ground  of  race  or  color,  it  is 
in  conflict  with  this  clause  of  the  Constitution, 
which  provides  that  the  people,  not  a  part  of 
the  people,  not  half  of  the  people,  not  white 
people,  or  black  people,  but  all  the  people, 
shall  be  represented  in  the  choice  of  their 
representatives,  State  and  national. 

I  think  I  have  shown,  that  all  Senators  on 
this  side  of  the  Chamber  admit  that  Congress 
has  a  right  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  and  proper 
to  guaranty  to  a  State  a  republican  form  of 
government,  provided  the  States  adopt  consti¬ 
tutions  which  are  not  republican  forms  of  gov¬ 
ernment. 

Then,  sir,  the  issue  is  clearly  narrowed  down 
to  the  question,  What  is  a  republican  govern¬ 
ment?  Whenever  it  can  be  shown  that  States 
have  violated  this  great  fundamental  idea,  it  is 
clearly  the  duty  of  Congress  to  intervene. 

My  colleague  [Mr.  Trumbull]  says,  in  a  let¬ 
ter,  published  in  The  Advance,  a  newspaper  in 
Chicago,  that  “  a  republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment  does  not  depend  upon  the  numbers  of  the 
people  who  participate  in  the  primary  elections 
for  members  of  Congress.”  It  is  true,  that  it 
does  not  exclusively  depend  on  the  numbers  of 
people  who  vote.  Minors  may  be  excluded  ; 
other  persons  may  be  excluded  on  account  of 
certain  disabilities.  But  while  a  republican  gov¬ 
ernment  does  not  depend  on  the  numbers  who 
constitute  the  body  politic,  it  does  depend 
largely  on  the  question,  whether  any  large  por¬ 
tion  of  the  people  are  excluded  from  the  ben¬ 
efit  of  suffrage,  on  the  ground  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition.  Let  me  put  a  case  to 
test  the  question.  Suppose  that  in  carrying 
out  the  provision  of  the  second  section  of  the 
first  article  of  the  Constitution,  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  some  State  should  say,  that  Germans 
should  not  participate  in  the  choice  of  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Legislature  and  Representatives  in 
Congress ;  would  that  be  a  republican  form 
of  government?  Suppose  that  Illinois,  where 
we  have  a  large  mass  of  Germans,  a  most  in¬ 
telligent,  industrious,  and  thrifty  population, 
who  constitute  a  large  portion  of  the  Republi¬ 
can  strength  in  that  State,  and  who  are  almost 
universally  the  friends  of  freedom,  loyal  to  the 
Government,  and  gallant  defenders  of  the  flag  ; 
suppose  that  the  constitution  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  should  be  altered  so  as  to  say,  that  the 
people  who  are  to  choose  members  of  Con¬ 
gress  and  members  of  the  State  Legislature 
should  not  include  any  person  of  German 
birth,  would  it  not  be  anti-republican  in  form  ? 
Does  any  man  dare  to  say  that  it  would  not 
be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  intervene  to  re¬ 
store  to  those  Germans  their  rights,  to  declare 
the  constitution  of  the  State,  so  far  as  it 
excluded  this  large  class  of  our  fellow  citizens, 
to  be  not  republican  in  its  features?  Suppose 
that  the  people  of  Utah  should  exclude  from 
the  polls  everybody  but  Mormons,  followers 


9 


of  their  faith ;  suppose  that  Connecticut  should 
exclude  everybody  except  Congregationalists ; 
or  Maryland  every  body  except  Catholics,  would 
it  not  be  our  duty  to  intervene,  and  make  those 
governments  republican  in  form  ?  And  yet, 
when  it  is  proposed  to  enfranchise  the  negro, 
we  bow  to  the  prejudice  of  caste,  and  say  that 
a  State  government  is  republican  in  form, 
whether  it  excludes  the  colored  man  or  not. 

If  I  am  asked  whether  there  must  not  be 
some  limitations,  I  reply,  yes  ;  but  not  total 
exclusion ;  there  may  be  temporary  disabili¬ 
ties,  of  age,  residence,  and  other  disabilities ; 
but  the  difference  between  making  temporary 
provisions  as  to  a  class,  and  the  total  exclusion 
of  a  whole  race  of  our  fellow- citizens,  is  very 
apparent. 

Mr.  CONKLING.  By  permission  of  the 
Senator  I  beg  to  ask  him  a  question.  He  says 
that  fixing  qualifications  as  to  residence  and 
age  is  within  the  power  of  the  States,  as  I 
understand  him.  1  beg  to  inquire  whether,  if 
the  State  of  Illinois  should  say  that  voting 
should  be  confined  to  persons  upward  of  forty- 
five  years  of  age,  and  who  had  resided  in  the 
State  of  Illinois  at  least  twenty-five  years,  such 
a  provision  as  that  would  be  republican,  in  his 
judgment  ? 

Mr.  YATES.  Exclusions  from  suffrage  for 
a  time,  and  which  apply  to  all  men  alike,  are 
allowable.  If  all  men  are  excluded,  men  of  all 
races,  until  they  are  of  suitable  age,  from 
voting,  1  do  not  see  anything  which  would  con¬ 
flict  with  its  being  a  republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment.  Equality  is  the  basis  of  a  republican 
government.  The  Senator  seems  to  forget  the 
idea  which  enters  into  the  definition  of  a 
truly  republican  government.  He  was  very 
sound  yesterday,  or  some  other  Senator  was 
very  sound  in  my  view,  when  he  said,  it  did  not 
depend  on  Congress  to  say  what  sort  of  stat¬ 
utes  of  limitation  a  State  should  have  as  to  the 
payment  of  debts,  applicable  to  all  citizens 
alike,  but  Congress  shall  guaranty  to  every  State 
a  republican  form  of  government;  and  the  test 
whether  a  government  is  republican,  depends 
upon  whether  it  grants  to  all  citizens  alike  the 
same  privileges,  and  imposes  upon  all  citizens 
the  same  disabilities  and  duties.  To  define  the 
length  of  residence  necessary  to  enable  a  man 
to  vote,  to  say  what  his  age  shall  be,  is  one 
thing;  and  to  say  that  he  shall  not  vote  at  all 
because  he  is  black  or  white,  is  an  entirely  dif¬ 
ferent  thing.  In  the  latter  case,  color  is  made 
the  disqualification,  just  as  race  would  be  if 
Germans  were  excluded  from  the  ballot-box. 
The  Slate  may  preserve  a  right;  it  may  fix  the 
qualifications;  it  may  impose  certain  restric¬ 
tions  so  as  to  have  that  right  preserved  in  the 
best  form  to  the  people;  but  it  is  not  legiti¬ 
mately  in  the  power  of  the  State,  it  is  not  in 
the  power  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  it  is  not  in  any  earthly  power  to  de¬ 
stroy  a  man's  equal  rights  to  his  property,  to 
his  franchise,  to  his  suffrage,  or  to  the  right  to 
aspire  to  office — I  mean  according  to  the  true  I 


theory  of  a  republican  government.  That  is 
the  one  thing,  that  in  this  country,  the  Govern¬ 
ment  cannot  do. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling] 
will  remember,  that  if  a  State  constitution 
should  do  so  unwise  a  thing  as  to  debar  from 
the  polls  all  men  till  forty-five  years  of  age, 
there  is  a  question  behind  that.  Who  made 
the  constitution?  Were  all  men,  of  all  races 
and  colors  permitted  to  vote  on  the  question 
whether  that  limitation  should  be  put  on  all 
alike?  If  he  means  that  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  where  only  a  portion  of  the  people  can 
vote,  that  that  portion  of  the  people  have  a 
right  to  impose  such  a  limitation  on  others 
who  have  no  voice  in  making  the  limitation, 
then  most  clearly  such  a  provision  would  be 
anti-republican.  My  answer  to  him  is,  that 
such  a  provision  as  he  mentions,  would  estab¬ 
lish  an  oligarchy,  and  therefore  be  unconstitu¬ 
tional,  while  a  reasonable  limitation  as  to  age 
is  not  only  proper,  but  absolutely  necessary, 
and  if  made  applicable  to  all  men  alike  would 
be  constitutional. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  will  ask  me,  per¬ 
haps — I  address  myself  to  him  simply  because 
he  sits  before  me — “  Do  you  not  consider  Illi¬ 
nois  a  republican  government?  Do  not  you 
consider  New  York  a  republican  government?” 
I  answer  that  question  by  asking  another: 
Does  New  York  exclude  from  suffrage,  among 
the  people  who  are  to  choose  members  of  the 
Legislature,  any  large  class  of  its  citizens  ?  and 
then  I  leave  him  to  answer  whether  a  govern¬ 
ment  that  does  that  is  republican. 

Mr.  President,  I  say  to  Senators  that  we 
must  look  at  things  as  they  are.  The  disabili¬ 
ties  which  heretofore  existed  against  the  black 
man  have  been  removed.  Even  admitting  the 
soundness  of  the  hard  ruling  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  what  was  it?  That  the  black  man 
was  not  a  citizen  because  he  belonged  to  a 
subject  race,  because  a  slave  has  no  will,  and 
therefore  cannot  vote,  and  hence  is  excluded 
from  the  body-politic.  But  now,  that  disabil¬ 
ity  is  removed ;  slavery  is  dead  and  will  have 
no  resurrection ;  the  genius  of  civilization 
touched  it,  and  it  fell  ;  the  light  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  blazed  upon  it,  and  it  faded 
away.  By  the  thirteenth  amendment  of  the 
Constitution,  slavery  was  abolished  throughout 
the  land,  and  Congress  was  required  “  by  appro¬ 
priate  legislation”  to  enforce  emancipation. 
By  this  emancipation,  the  disabilities  which 
attached  to  the  colored  race  are  removed,  and 
the  colored  man  stands  before  the  country  and 
the  world  a  freeman  and  a  citizen;  emanci¬ 
pated  into  the  sovereignty,  one  of  the  people, 
one  of  the  body-politic,  and  is  entitled  to  the 
same  rights  and  privileges  that  any  other  citi¬ 
zen,  of  whatever  color,  may  enjoy. 

1  admit,  sir,  in  the  language  of  the  Chicago 
platform,  if  you  choose,  that  in  the  first  in¬ 
stance,  the  right  of  suffrage  belongs  properly 
to  the  States  to  regulate  tor  themselves:  but 
I  it  is  subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


10 


States,  to  the  Constitution  as  it  is  amended; 
and  especially  to  that  particular  clause  in  the 
Constitution  which  says,  that  Congress  shall 
guaranty  to  every  State  in  this  Union,  a  repub¬ 
lican  form  of  government. 

Now,  let  me  repea*  the  question  :  What  is  a 
republican  form  of  government?  Mr.  Madi¬ 
son,  in  the  forty-second  number  of  the  Fed¬ 
eralist,  says:  “The  definition  of  the  right  of 
suffrage  is  very  justly  regarded  as  a  funda¬ 
mental  article  of  republican  government,’’  and 
he  speaks  at  length  on  that  subject.  I  only 
read  enough  to  show  that  the  question,  who 
shall  vote,  is  of  the  essence  of  a  republican 
government,  and  enters  into  the  definition  of 
what  is  to  be  considered  a  republican  form  of 
government. 

Mr.  Madison  further  says  in  the  Federalist, 
No.  57 : 

“  Let  me  now  ask,  what  circumstance  there  is  in 
the  constitution  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
that  violates  the  principles  of  republican  govern¬ 
ment,  or  favors  the  elevation  of  the  few  on  the  ruins 
of  the  many?  Let  me  ask,  whether  every  circum¬ 
stance  is  not,  on  the  contrary,  strictly  conformable 
to  these  principles;  and  scrupulously  impartial  to 
the  rights  and  pretensions  of  every  class  and  descrip¬ 
tion  of  citizens?  Who  are  to  be  the  electors  of  the 
Federal  Representatives?  Not  the  rich,  more  than 
the  poor;  not  the  learned,  more  than  the  ignorant; 
not  the  haughty  heirs  of  distinguished  names,  more 
than  the  humble  sons  of  obscurity  and  unpropitious 
fortune.  The  electors  are  to  be  the  great  body  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  They  are  to  be  the 
same  who  exercise  the  right  in  every  State  of  elect¬ 
ing  the  correspondent  branch  of  the  Legislature  of 
the  State.” 

Now,  what  I  say  emphatically,  and  what  the 
people  of  this  country  will  indorse,  is,  that  in 
the  light  of  the  Declaration  of  American  Inde¬ 
pendence,  in  the  light  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  as  amended,  any  State  gov¬ 
ernment  which  excludes  one  large  class  of  citi¬ 
zens  from  suffrage  is  not  a  republican  govern¬ 
ment.  It  must  embrace  the  representation  of 
the  great  body  of  the  people  without  distinc¬ 
tion  of  race  or  color.  I  maintain  that  propo¬ 
sition,  and  I  say  that  no  Senator  can  maintain 
the  reverse.  I  say  emphatically,  that  the 
equal  right  of  every  man  to  vote  and  to  aspire 
to  office  is  essential  to  republican  government, 
and  if  he  is  deprived  of  that  right,  the  govern¬ 
ment  which  deprives  him  of  itis  not  republican. 

Sir,  in  its  spirit  and  in  its  letter,  and  in  sub¬ 
stance,  the  adverse  plea  is  bad.  The  very 
essence,  marrow,  and  life  of  a  republican  gov¬ 
ernment,  the  very  basis  of  republican  govern¬ 
ment,  is  equality  of  all  its  citizens.  The  ques¬ 
tion  whether  any  class  of  citizens  can  be  ex¬ 
cluded  from  the  right  of  suffrage,  is  a  vital  and 
a  fundamental  question.  It  is  the  only  ques¬ 
tion  to  be  decided  in  this  argument.  It  is  sub¬ 
terranean,  it  runs  under  the  very  foundation 
corners  of  republican  government,  and  if  you 
acknowledge  the  right  to  thus  exclude  any  class 
of  citizens,  you  loosen  the  earth  around  and 
beneath  the  corner-stones  and  the  structure 
will  fall.  Whenever  a  Government  attempts  to 
exclude  any  large  class  of  its  citizens  from  the 
rights  which  it  gives  to  other  citizens,  it  ceases 


to  be  republican.  Such  exclusion  stamps  it 
with  the  brand  of  an  oligarchy  as  indelibly  as 
did  the  spot  of  blood  on  the  hand  of  Lady 
Macbeth  stamp  her  as  a  murderess. 

And  the  argument  that  Illinois  or  New 
York  or  Ohio  is  a  republican  form  of  govern¬ 
ment,  if  it  excludes  any  large  class  of  citizens 
on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condi¬ 
tion,  if  we  are  to  judge  it  according  to  the 
foundation  theories  of  our  governmental  sys¬ 
tem,  is  not  worthy  of  a  child  ten  years  old. 

The  Republican  masses  of  the  country  under¬ 
stand  it,  and  last  year  the  Republicans  of  Ohio 
tried  to  make  their  government  republican,  to 
make  it  conform  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  by  conferring  the  elective  fran¬ 
chise  upon  all  her  people  without  regard  to 
race,  color,  or  previous  condition. 

I  am  not  asking  what  is  an  approximation 
to  a  republican  form  of  government ;  I  am  not 
inquiring  whether  Illinois  is  not  more  repub¬ 
lican  than  some  Government  in  Europe  or 
than  some  other  State.  I  am  not  trying  to 
decide  that  question  ;  but  I  am  trying  to  decide 
the  only  issue  that  is  before  the  American  peo¬ 
ple,  and  that  is  presented  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  namely,  whether  any 
Government  which  excludes  a  citizen  from  his 
rights,  except  for  mere  temporary  disability, 
such  as  age,  or  residence,  or  crime,  is  a  repub¬ 
lican  form  of  government.  Why,  sir,  a  man’s 
right  to  vote  is  as  sacred  as  any  other  right 
that  he  has.  To  rob  a  mau  of  that  right  is  as 
wicked  as  the  law  of  slavery,  which  robs  him 
of  his  wife,  or  child,  or  of  himself. 

What  is  the  theory  upon  which  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  was  built?  What 
was  the  cause  of  the  Revolution?  For  what 
did  our  fathers  fight,  but  the  principle  that 
taxation  and  representation  must  go  together, 
and  that  all  just  government  must  be  founded 
upon  the  consent  of  the  governed,  not  a  part 
of  the  governed,  not  half  of  the  governed, 
not  an  oligarchy,  but  upon  the  consent  of  all 
the  people?  A  majority  of  all  the  people  of 
the  United  States  are  to  decide  those  ques¬ 
tions  by  which  the  rights  of  all  are  protected, 
the  will  of  all  is  represented,  and  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  itself  is  maintained  and  preserved. 
Go  back  to  revolutionary  days  ;  go  back  to 
the  door-steps  of  those  little  meetings  of  our 
fathers,  as  they  stood  up  with  wounds  yet  bleed¬ 
ing,  fresh  from  the  Revolution,  and  with  the 
blood  and  sweat  of  battle  running  down  their 
furrowed  cheeks  ;  listen  to  their  discussions, 
and  what  do  you  hear?  Their  only  remon¬ 
strance  against  the  mother  country  was  her 
asserted  right  to  tax  the  Colonies  without  their 
consent.  This  was  the  initial  cause  of  the 
Revolution.  It  was  for  this  that  the  blood  of 
our  fathers  consecrated  the  battle-fields  of  the 
Revolution  ;  it  was  for  this  that  John  Han¬ 
cock  and  James  Otis  spoke  ;  it  was  for  this 
that  Warren  fell — a  denial  of  the  right  of  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  tax  the  people  without  their  con¬ 
sent. 


11 


This  power  in  Congress  to  guaranty  a 
republican  form  of  government  to  the  States 
is  a  mighty  and  a  vital  power.  It  is  the  wisest 
power  in  the  Constitution.  It  is  the  only 
power  by  which  the  national  Government  can 
preserve  its  nationality,  by  which  it  can. se¬ 
cure  equal  representation,  by  which  it  can 
put  the  States  upon  an  equality.  It  is  the  doc¬ 
trine  that  was  designed  to  protect  the  States  in 
their  rights  in  the  true  sense  of  “  State  rights,” 
so  that  all  the  States  should  be  upon  an  equal 
footing,  and  the  citizens  of  each  State  should 
enjoy  all  their  rights  in  every  State  of  the 
Union.  As  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
well  said  in  one  of  his  speeches,  “this  guar¬ 
antee  clause  has  been  a  sleeping  giant  but 
recently  awakened  during  the  war,  and  now 
comes  forth  with  a  giant’s  power.” 

Sir,  what  is  the  duty  of  the  Republican  party? 
What  position  should  the  Republican  party 
take?  Will  they  stand  back  appalled  by  the 
statement  that  the  question  is  settled?  Will 
they  join  the  State-rights  party  upon  the  other 
side  of  the  House,  and  in  the  South,  and  say 
that  Congress  has  not  the  means  for  its  own 
preservation  in  its  hands,  and  as&ert  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  State  rights,  by  which  the  leaders  of 
the  rebellion  are  to  control  fche  legislation  and 
the  destinies  of  this  country? 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  say  to  Senators  and 
Representatives,  and  to  all  of  the  Republican 
party,  that  we  have  to  meet  this  question  of 
suffrage.  It  must  be  met.  It  confronts  us  in 
the  next  elections.  It  confronts  us  in  the  new 
relations  of  five  million  people  set  free.  It 
confronts  us  in  the  imperious  demand  made  by 
the  emancipated  race  for  enfranchisement.  We 
cannot  ignore  the  question.  Buryingyour  head 
in  the  sand  will  not  obscure  you  from  the  keen 
gaze  of  the  pursuer.  Your  opponents  will  meet 
you  upon  every  stump,  and  ask  you  whether  you 
are  for  universal  manhood  suffrage.  It  cannot 
be  dodged.  No  question  of  finance,  or  banks, 
or  currency,  or  tariffs,  can  obscure  this  mighty 
moral  question  of  the  age.  No  glare  of  mili¬ 
tary  glory,  not  even  the  mighty  name  of  Gen¬ 
eral  Grant,  can  stifle  the  determination  of  the 
people  to  finally  consummate  the  great  end 
and  aim  for  which  the  Republican  party  was 
brought  into  being.  We  are  to  be  for  or  against 
suffrage.  If  we  are  for  it,  how  many  States 
shall  we  lose?  I  mean  as  a  State  question. 
How  many  will  there  be  like  Ohio,  bowing  to 
the  prejudice  of  color  and  caste  and  afraid  to 
proclaim  their  honest  sentiments  ?  How  many 
States  shall  we  lose  if  we  are  for  it?  If  we 
ignore  it,  if  we  give  the  lie  to  the  whole  record 
of  our  lives  and  evade  it,  try  to  dodge  it,  then, 
I  think  I  can  speak  for  Illinois  alone,  we  shall 
be  beaten  by  fifty  thousand  majority  upon  a 
vote  taken  in  that  State. 

How,  then,  do  I  propose  to  settle  this  whole 
question  ?  The  States  have  in  the  first  instance 
acted  upon  it:  they  have  established  govern¬ 
ments  which  are  not  republican  in  so  far  as 
they  exclude  portions  of  the  people  from  the 


ballot-box,  and  I  would  by  a  bill  not  ten  lines 
in  length  declare  that  no  State  shall  in  its  con¬ 
stitution  or  laws,  make  any  distinction  in  the 
!  qualifications  of  electors,  on  the  ground  of 
color,  caste,  or  race,  and  that  all  the  provis¬ 
ions  of  any  constitution,  or  law  of  any  State, 
which  exclude  persons  from  the  elective  fran- 
|!  chise  on  the  ground  aforesaid,  shall  be  null  and 
void. 

Such  a  law  would  be  constitutional  and  just 
to  every  section,  just  to  all  the  people;  and 
|  the  people  instead  of  opposing  it,  would  hail  it 
with  joy  and  gladness.  They  would  pronounce 
it  the  wisest  act  that  the  Congress  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States  had  ever  performed,  because  it  would 
remove  this  bone  of  contention  from  the  arena 
of  State  politics;  it  would  forever  settle  this 
disturbing  question  ;  it  would  make  citizenship 
uniform  in  every  State  of  the  Union.  And 
if  we  would  exercise  our  power  “by  laws 
necessary  and  proper”  to  pass  such  a  bill  as 
this,  the  effect  would  be  salutary,  and  would 
result  in  the  final  and  certain  triumph  of  the 
Republican  party.  I  know,  sir,  what  timidity 
suggests  to  the  minds  of  Senators,  but  a  bold, 
honest,  straightforward  course  would  set  this 
country  right  upon  this  question,  and  we  should 
|  gloriously  triumph  in  every  election. 

Shall  the  party  which  has  come  up  through 
great  tribulation,  has  faced  all  these  questions, 
j  the  abolition  of  the  slave  traffic  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District,  the  fugitive  slave  law,  the  emancipa¬ 
tion  of  the  slaves,  the  employment  of  colored 
troops,  the  establishment  of  negro  suffrage  in 
j  the  District  of  Columbia  and  in  the  rebel  States, 

'  shall  the  party  now  hesitate  before  it  takes  the 
|  last  final  step  of  a  full,  complete,  and  glorious 
i  triumph? 

Sir,  the  people  do  not  understand  that  argu- 
,  ment  which  says  that  Congress  may  confer  upon 
a  man  his  civil  rights  and  not  his  political  rights. 
It  is  the  pleading  of  a  lawyer  ;  it  is  too  narrow 
for  statesmanship.  They  do  not  understand 
why  a  man  should  have  the  right  to  hold  prop¬ 
erty,  to  bring  suits,  to  testify  in  courts  of  justice, 
and  not  have  the  right  to  a  voice  in  the  selec¬ 
tion  of  the  rulers  by  whom  he  is  to  be  governed, 
and  in  making  the  laws  by  which  he  is  to  be 
bound.  Shall  he  have  civil  rights  without 
the  power  of  protecting  himself  in  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  them  ?  What  is  liberty,  what  is  eman¬ 
cipation  without  enfranchisement?  What  is 
'  the  abolition  of  slavery,  unless  you  employ  the 
power  conferred  upon  you  by  the  Constitution, 
as  amended,  “  to  enforce  by  appropriate  legisla¬ 
tion’  ’  the  rights  of  the  emancipated  slave  ?  Shall 
this  party  which  has  been  the  champion  of  the 
equality  of  all  men,  which  has  proclaimed  it 
upon  the  housetops  everywhere  throughout  the 
land,  nowshriuk  from  asserting  practically  the 
equal  rights  of  all  men  of  this  race?  Shall  we 
draw  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  between  the  right 
to  vote  in  the  North  and  in  the  South  ?  Shull 
we  impose  on  the  South,  the  votes  of  four  or 
five  million  ignorant  people  just  released  from 


12 


slavery,  and  refuse  it  to  the  more  enlightened 
and  intelligent  colored  men  of  the  North,  who 
are  much  fewer  in  number?  Is  that  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  great  Republican  party?  Will  it 
hesitate  to  exercise  a  power  clearly  vested  in 
Congress  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  to  confer  the  same  rights  upon  all 
the  people,  in  every  section,  North  as  well  as 
South,  East  as  well  as  West?  Will  you  by 
doing  injustice — yes,  sir,  absolute  injustice — 
to  the  free  colored  men  of  the  North,  lose  their 
votes  in  the  coming  presidential  election,  and 
in  the  States  where  the  balance  of  power  would 
be  in  their  hands? 

You  know  well  that  the  argument  was  used 
with  wonderful  effect  in  Ohio,  that  argument 
which  lost  us  our  valued  Senator,  [Mr.  Wade;] 
that  while  we,  the  great  Republican  party, 
could  impose  equal  suffrage  on  the  southern 
people,  we  were  not  willing  to  impose  it  upon 
ourselves;  that  while  we  could  do  justice  to 
the  loyal  m.iions  of  ignorant  black  men  in  the 
South  we  could  not  do  justice  to  the  loyal 
thousands  of  intelligent  black  men  in  the 
North.  1  refer  to  this  because  to  this  issue  we 
are  forced,  and  we  might  as  well  face  it  at 
once.  The  power  is  with  us.  We  have  exer¬ 
cised  the  power  in  the  southern  States.  We 
have  the  same  power  in  the  northern  States, 
and  every  consideration  of  justice,  expediency, 
and  success  demands  the  prompt  exercise  of 
the  power. 

I  know  it  is  asked,  Why  not  have  the  Consti¬ 
tution  amended?  1  ask,  why  have  it  amended  ? 
When  the  Constitution  says,  that  we  shall  by 
necessary  and  proper  laws,  carry  into  effect  this 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  when  we  have 
the  power  by  law  to  do  it  already,  why  have 
a  constitutional  amendment?  We  have  not 
time — we  cannot  wait  for  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution.  How  long  would  it  be  before 
Kentucky  would  consent,  by  agreeing  to  ratify 
such  a  constitutional  amendment,  to  give 
enfranchisement  to  her  colored  population  ? 
At  least  fifty  years  ;  and  so  of  Maryland,  and 
of  many  northern  States.  A  constitutional 
amendment  wiii  not  accomplish  the  object. 
By  waiting  for  that  we  shall  commit  the  same 
mistake  that  we  committed  when  we  did  not, 
at  the  end  of  the  war,  declare  all  the  slave 
States,  except  Missouri,  disloyal,  and  act  for 
them  ail  as  disloyal  States.  Such  a  constitu¬ 
tional  amendment  would,  perhaps,  never  be 
adopted,  i  say  there  is  no  necessity  for  amend¬ 
ing  your  Constitution  in  this  way.  Use  the 
power  ;  you  have  it.  Read  your  Constitution  ; 
understand  it;  you  need  not  amend  it;  but 
exercise  the  power  it  clearly  confers. 

It  is  said  that  such  a  law  would  be  subject 
to  repeal  if  Congress  were  to  pass  it.  That  is 
true  ;  but  then  1  have  the  authority  of  my  col¬ 
league,  and  l  have  the  authority  of  the  Senator 
from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Sherman,]  for  saying  that  such 
a  law  would  not  be  repealed.  The  Senator 
from  Ohio  [Mr.  Sherman]  said  the  other  day, 
that  when  these  rights  are  once  Conferred,  they 


will  never  be  given  back.  My  colleague  said, 
and  trul}  said,  that  when  these  men  once  get 
these  rights,  they  will  never  give  them  up,  and 
as  the  Senator  from  Ohio  wellsaid,  the  tendency 
of  all  legislation  of  this  day,  is  in  favor  of  the 
extension  of  the  right  of  suffrage. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  “the  era  of  good  feel¬ 
ing”  we  want,  such  as  existed  in  Monroe’s 
administration,  when  all  questions  were  settled, 
when  all  the  States  were  in  harmony  each  with 
the  other.  This  question  settled  we  will  have 
an  “era  of  good  feeling,”  States  all  the  same 
in  their  rights,  individuals  having  the  same 
rights,  no  sectional  jealousies,  this  disturbance 
removed  from  politics  entirely.  There  is  no 
way  under  the  sun  by  which  it  can  be  done, 
but  for  Congress  to  exercise  its  just  and  con¬ 
stitutional  powers  by  a  law  for  that  purpose, 
and  not  throw  the  question  into  the  caldron  of 
State  politics,  a  bone  of  contention,  there  to 
divide  the  people,  it  may  be  for  fifty  years  to 
come.  Rather  let  us,  by  one  sublime  act  of 
nationality,  broad  as  the  clause  of  the  constitu¬ 
tion  abolishing  slavery,  confer  these  rights 
upon  every  citizen  in  every  State  of  the  Union. 

The  Republican  party  cannot  stand  still. 
If  it  stands  still,  or  recedes,  it  dies.  It  must 
move  forward.  When  we  set  five  million  peo¬ 
ple  free  they  had  to  be  taken  care  of.  They 
had  to  be  made  citizens.  But  are  they  taken 
care  of,  when  we  deprive  them  of  the  rights 
which  belong  to  other  citizens?  Will  the  Re¬ 
publican  party  fail  to  take  this  last  final  step 
in  this  mighty  onward  movement  of  human 
progress?  Sir,  suppose  the  almighty  Archi¬ 
tect  of  the  Universe,  after  he  had  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  the  sun  and  the  moon 
and  the  stars,  on  the  sixth  day,  had  ceased  his 
work,  and  not  created  man  and  breathed  into 
him  the  breath  of  an  immortal  soul.  So 
would  it  now  be,  if  the  Republican  party, 
after  vindicating  the  beautiful  and  beneficent 
system  of  government  designed  by  the  genius 
of  our  revolutionary  sires,  should  fail  to  con¬ 
summate  the  last  great  act,  and  admit  to  equal, 
enjoyment  with  themselves,  the  immortal  mil¬ 
lions,  who  for  two  hundred  years  have  sighed 
and  suffered  under  our  rule. 

I  Know,  sir,  that  the  other  party  say  that  the 
Republican  party  are  attempting  to  establish 
the  supremacy  of  negro  rule.  I  wish  to  say 
in  regard  to  that,  simply  that  with  no  decent 
regard  to  truth  can  any  man  say  that  the 
Republican  party  propose  to  establish  the 
supremacy  of  negro  rule.  You  cannot  point 
me  to  the  declaration  of  a  Senator,  or  of  a 
politician,  or  of  a  newspaper  of  the  Republican 
party,  that  says  the  Republican  party  is  pro¬ 
posing  to  establish  the  dominion  of  negroes 
over  the  country.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  Republican  party.  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Republican  party  is  the  equality 
of  all  men,  and  the  supremacy  and  rule  of  all 
men.  I  might,  with  much  more  propriety,  say 
that  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  Doo¬ 
little]  is  trying  to  establish  rebel  rule  in  this 


13 


country  than  he  can  say  the  Republican  party 
is  trying  to  establish  negro  rule,  because,  he  is 
willing  to  enfranchise  the  leaders  of  the  rebel¬ 
lion,  the  men  who  organized  civil  war,  the  men 
whose  hands  are  red  with  the  blood  of  our 
country’s  defenders,  and  whose  lips  are  frfesh 
with  perjury  ;  when  he  is  willing  to  take  them 
into  the  high  places  of  the  Government,  to 
allow  them  to  resume  their  former  positions  of 
power  and  sway,  I  may  truly  say  that  he  is  in 
favor  of  rebel  rule,  but  I  deny  that  it  can  be 
said  that  any  Republican  Senator  has  ever 
declared  anywhere,  that  he  was  in  favor  of 
negro  rule. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  cry  of  negro  equality 
is  equally  senseless  and  groundless.  States¬ 
manship,  nor  constitutions,  nor  laws,  noth¬ 
ing  can  make  ail  men  equal  in  fact.  From 
what  a  lofty,  shining  light  would  Frederick 
Douglass  have  to  fall,  to  reach  the  low  level 
of  Andrew  Johnson  ?  Far  as  the  angels  fell. 

“Hurled  headlong  flaming  from  the  ethereal  sky,” 
********** 

“  Nine  times  the  space  that  measures  day  and  night 
To  mortal  men.” 

Statesmanship,  however,  can  confer  upon  men 
the  same  chances  in  life,  the  same  protection, 
the  same  laws,  the  same  privileges,  the  same 
rights  of  every  kind. 

The  fact  that  one  race  is  superior  to  another 
is  no  warrant  for  its  having  superior  advan¬ 
tages;  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  is  any 
advantage,  it  should  rather  be  in  favor  of  pro¬ 
tection  to  the  meek,  the  humble,  and  the  lowly. 
1  believe,  myself,  that  the  pure  American 
Anglo-Saxon  man  is  the  highest  style  in  all 
God’s  created  humanity,  and  therefore  I  believe 
he  can  fight  his  way  through,  without  having 
an  advantage  by  law  over  his  poor  colored 
neighbor  and  fellow-citizen,  and  that  he  is  not 
in  danger  of  being  subjected  to  that  negro  rule 
and  supremacy,  of  which  so  much  is  said. 

It  is  contended  by  the  Senator  from  New 
Hampshire  [Mr.  Patterson]  that  there  should 
be  a  qualification,  that  only  those  who  can 
read  and  write  should  vote.  I  reply  to  this, 
that  we  ourselves,  by  our  own  action,  have 
conferred  suffrage  upon  those  who  cannot 
read  and  write.  Providence  overruled  us  in 
this  regard.  In  order  to  have  loyal  States  in 
the  South,  we  were  compelled  to  confer  suffrage 
upon  those  who  could  not  read  and  write.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  thousands  of  white 
men  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  and  in  every  other  State,  who  cannot 
read  and  write,  and  yet  who  make  good  citi¬ 
zens.  We  cannot,  by  any  principle  of  equality, 
confer  suffrage  upon  any  favorite  class,  either 
of  intelligence,  wealth,  birth,  or  fortune. 
There  is  this  advantage  in  universal  suffrage: 
that  the  masses,  though  ignorant,  are  honest, 
and  they  are  a  check  upon  the  intelligent  oli¬ 
garchy,  to  whom,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  have  been 
traced  mistakes  and  corruption  upon  many  and 
many  a  bloody  page  of  history  in  all  times  past. 

The  true  theory  is  to  trust  the  Government 


of  the  American  people  as  our  fathers  made 
it,  to  the  consent  of  the  governed,  founded 
upon  the  rights  of  all  the  people,  to  the  strong 
common  sense  of  all  the  people.  There  is 
more  virtue  and  more  intelligence  in  all  the 
people,  than  there  is  in  a  part  of  the  people. 
All  the  people,  all  the  virtuous  people,  all  the 
wise  people,  all  the  ignorant  people,  must  be 
consulted.  We  must  trust  that  one  force  will 
counterpoise  the  other  in  the  future,  as  it  has 
done  in  the  past. 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sum¬ 
ner]  is  a  very  learned  man  ;  but  I  would  not 
be  willing  to  trust  the  legislation  of  this 
country  in  the  hands  of  a  hundred  men  like 
him.  Professor  Agassiz  is  a  very  classic  man. 
We  live  with  Longfellow  in  his  poetry.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  and  Theodore  Tilton  are  men 
of  rare  genius,  sparkling  wit,  and  surpassing 
eloquence;  and  yet  I  would  not  trust  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  this  people  in  the  hands  of  such 
men  alone.  I  take  it  that  the  banker  knows 
more  aboutfinances  than  the  Senator  from  Mich¬ 
igan  [Mr.  Howard]  does,  because  his  pursuits 
are  different;  the  merchant  knowsmore  about 
barter  and  trade,  and  the  poor  man  knows  the 
wants  of  poverty,  and  the  wants  of  the  people, 
better  than  the  rich  or  the  intelligent.  Jeff. 
Davis  is  an  educated  man — educated  at  the 
expense  of  that  Government  at  whose  throat 
he  made  an  infernal  leap.  Robert  Toombs  is 
an  educated  man.  I  would  rather  trust  the 
government  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
to  the  hands  of  all  the  people,  to  the  hands  of 
the  humblest  laborer  who  was  loyal,  and  who 
had  an  honest  heart,  who  was  devoted  to  his 
country,  than  to  any  oligarchy  or  favored  few. 

Sir,  it  is  the  ballot  which  is  to  be  the  great 
educator.  The  fact  that  men  have  an  interest 
in  the  Government,  that  they  have  the'Yight  to 
vote  and  hold  office,  is  an  incentive  to  them  to 
inform  themselves.  This  is  the  reason  why 
education  is  more  universally  diffused  in  the 
United  States  than  in  any  other  country.  This 
is  the  reason  why  we  have  schools  and  col¬ 
leges  everywhere  in  our  midst.  They  are  the 
offspring  of  the  molding  influences  of  our  free 
institutions.  They  are  born  of  the  ballot. 

Much  has  been  said  about  the  results  of  the 
recent  elections.  Mr.  President,  if  the  Re¬ 
publican  party  will  stand  to  its  guns,  will  stand 
upon  the  platform  which  in  its  past  record  it 
has  made  for  itself,  will  stand  by  the  sequences 
of  its  own  teachings,  I  have  no  fears  for  the 
result.  As  for  myself,  sir,  as  I  did  three  years 
ago,  so  now  I  “  accept  the  situation.”  1  nail 
the  colors  of  universal  suffrage  to  the  mast¬ 
head  ;  and  I  am  for  it  by  act  of  Congress, 
guarantying  a  republican  government  to  every 
State  in  the  Union,  Eastas  well  as  West,  North 
as  well  as  well  as  South. 

I  do  not  propose  to  arraign  the  Democratic 
party.  I  will  only  say  this  :  they  have  been  the 
consistent  opponents  of  the  war  from  the  start. 
The  rebellion  could  not  have  stood  on  its  legs 
a  single  year  without  its  aid  and  cooperation. 


14 


The  Democratic  party,  as  an  organization,  has 
been  part  and  parcel,  yea,  the  very  heart  and 
life  of  the  rebellion  itself.  It  has  furnished  it 
its  leaders,  its  aid  and  sympathies.  In  their 
conventions,  in  their  platforms,  in  their  presses, 
in  Congress,  in  their  Legislatures,  they  opposed 
every  measure  for  a  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  war.  Sir,  I  well  remember  when  in  the 
western  States,  in  18G2  and  1863,  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  Legislatures  were  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  rebel  camps  in  the  capitals  of  those  States 
in  which  they  met.  They  passed  resolutions 
denouncing  the  war,  and  threw  every  obstacle 
in  our  way,  as  ever  since,  they  have  persist¬ 
ently  resisted  every  measure  by  Congress,  for 
the  speedy  and  proper  reconstruction  of  the 
Union. 

What  patriot  can  ever  forget  the  Democratic 
National  Convention  at  Chicago  of  July  29, 
1864,  presided  over  by  Horatio  Seymour  and 
engineered  by  Vallandigham,  when  the  whole 
weight  and  power  of  the  Democratic  party  were 
thrown  in  favor  of  the  enemies  of  the  country? 
It  was  at  that  fearful  crisis  in  the  history  of 
the  country,  when  the  scales  hung  even,  when 
Sherman  and  our  brave  boys  in  blue  were  mov- 
ingonthrough  Dalton,  over  Lookout  mountain, 
and  Mission  Ridge,  and  from  Atlanta  to  the 
sea,  amid  shot  and  shell,  and  the  war  and  thun¬ 
der  of  battle ;  when  Sheridan  was  sweeping 
along  the  valley  of  the  Shenandoah,  and  when 
Grant  was  struggling  in  that  hand-to-hand  fight 
through  the  Wilderness  ;  when  our  losses  were 
counted  by  thousands ;  when  the  question  of 
English  intervention  hung  doubtful  in  the 
scales  ;  when  the  good  Lincoln,  through  the 
weary  watches  of  the  night,  with  long  strides 
nervously  paced  his  executive  chamber  await¬ 
ing,  tremblingly,  dispatches  from  the  Army.  It 
was  while  events  like  these  were  transpiring 
that  the  Democratic  National  Convention  in 
Chicago,  representing  the  party  in  every  State 
of  the  Union,  passed,  amid  heaven-rending 
huzzas,  with  all  the  forms  of  parliamentary 
solemnity,  that  resolution,  forever  black  with 
the  imperishable  stain  of  treason,  that  the  war, 
after  four  years  of  fighting,  was  a  failure,  and 
that  the  public  welfare  demanded  an  immediate 
cessation  of  hostilities. 

That  party  even  now  charge  it  as  the  great 
crime  of  the  Republican  party,  that  it  disfran¬ 
chises  the  leading  rebels.  They  proclaim  that 
those  States  which  made  war  upon  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  and  set  up  governments  in  direct 
antagonism  to  our  own,  are  lawful  States  in  the 
Union,  having  the  right  all  the  time  during  the 
war,  and  now,  to  send  their  Senators  and  Rep¬ 
resentatives  unquestioned,  to  take  their  seats  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

And,  sir,  to  the  great  shame  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party,  while  they  would  receive  with 
open  arms  into  Congress,  the  leaders  of  that 
party  which  organized  the  rebellion,  brought 
on  the  war,  filled  the  land  with  mourning  and 
desolation,  and  by  plunder  and  piracy,  by 
arson  and  murder,  by  perjury  and  by  poison, 


by  the  slow  tortures  of  starvation,  and  by 
every  savage  and  infernal  cruelty  shocking  in 
the  sight  of  God  and  man  ;  while  they  would 
bring  them  back,  and  introduce  them  to  the 
high  places  of  power,  to  resume  their  former 
influence  in  the  Government,  they  descend  to 
the  unworthy  work  of  belittling  the  loyal 
blacks,  and  unblushingly  advocate  the  dis¬ 
franchisement  of  those  men  of  another  race 
who  guided  and  cheered  our  boys  in  blue,  and 
won  their  title  to  the  nation’s  gratitude  by 
deeds  of  imperishable  valor. 

If  I  had  time  I  could  turn  to  the  brighter 
record  of  the  Republican  party,  show  its  record 
bright  with  the  country  saved  from  the  hands 
of  the  spoiler,  and  the  banner  of  the  Union 
planted  upon  every  battlement  where  traitor 
hands  had  put  it  down.  But  I  refer  to  it  only 
in  one  aspect,  as  it  may  bear  upon  the  enfran¬ 
chisement  of  the  race  it  set  free. 

Deplorable  as  war  was,  it  has  had  its  com¬ 
pensations.  Slavery  is  dead,  and  will  know  no 
resurrection;  that  most  accursed  chatteling  of 
human  beings,  the  auction-block,  the  tearing 
asunder  of  mother  and  child,  the  day  of  stripes 
and  the  lash,  the  revolver  and  the  bowie-knife, 
are  past.  Dens  and  caverns,  thepursuingblood- 
hounds,  mountains  climbed  and  rivers  crossed 
and  no  escape  from  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws — these  have  past.  What  a  sublime  result, 
that  not  a  single  slave  clanks  his  chains  upon 
one  inch  of  American  soil,  and  that  the  na¬ 
tions  hail  with  shouts  of  joy  the  banner  of  uni¬ 
versal  emancipation  !  Thanks  to  God ;  thanks 
to  the  Anti-Slavery  Society ;  thanks  to  Parker, 
Garrison,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  Wendell 
Phillips,  and  all  the  pioneers  in  the  anti¬ 
slavery  cause ;  thanks  to  the  Republican  party 
and  the  Thirty-Ninth  Congress;  thanks  to 
Grant  and  Sheridan  and  Sherman  and  our 
brave  boys  in  blue  everywhere;  thanks  to 
Abraham  Lincoln  for  the  proclamation  of 
emancipation  ;  thanks  to  all  who  labored,  suf¬ 
fered,  and  achieved,  who  fought  and  who  fell 
for  this  lifting  up  to  light  and  liberty  and  citi¬ 
zenship  five  millions  of  God’s  long-oppressed 
and  downtrodden  poor;  but  thanks  also  to  the 
poor  freedman  himself,  for  he,  too,  has  borne 
himself  most  nobly.  Of  them  it  may  be  said, 
“  Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit 
the  earth.”  How  humbly  have  they  walked, 
poor  slaves  and  outcasts !  no  law  for  them,  no 
home,  no  property,  no  name,  no  wife  nor  child 
he  could  call  his  own,  no  heritage  but  hopeless 
bondage — borne  down  for  centuries  by  the  iron 
heel  of  foul  oppression,  they  never  aspired  to  rule 
over  us  ;  they  only  asked  to  be  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  water,  and  for  a  place  to  lie 
down  and  die.  Instead  of  insurrections  and 
massacres  of  women  and  children,  as  we 
feared,  no  instance  is  on  record  of  a  single 
act  of  savage  cruelty  on  their  part  during  the 
war.  It  was  said  they  were  too  cowardly  to 
fight,  and  yet  they  fought  more  daringly  than 
Napoleon’s  veterans,  and  threw  themselves 
headlong  on  the  battlements  of  the  enemy  and 


15 


into  the  mine  of  Petersburg,  and  into  the 
breach  at  Port  Hudson,  and  into  the  jaws  of 
death  everywhere,  with  an  irrepressible  ardor 
and  lofty  daring,  equaled  only  by  that  of  our 
own  unmatched  and  dauntless  boys  in  blue, 
fighting  for  a  flag,  which  for  two  hundred  years 
has  been  the  ensign  of  liberty  for  all  but  them. 

I  n  all  the  long  and  fearful  struggle  of  the  war, 
not  one  of  these  sable  millions  ever  proved  faith¬ 
less  to  the  flag.  Did  one  solitary  one  of  them 
ever  refuse  to  share  his  scanty  loaf  with  the  sick 
and  wounded  soldier?  Who,  when  night  spread 
its  dark  robes  over  the  earth,  led  our  worn  and 
wearied  soldier  through  bayous,  swamps,  and 
by-paths,  and  bid  him  God  speed  to  his  home, 
and  the  headquarters  of  our  Army  ? 

And  now,  after  having  secured  our  own 
safety  and  the  life  of  the  nation  aided  by  his  acts 
of  valor,  in  common  with  those  of  our  brave 
soldiers ;  if,  after  they  have  been  called  to  be 
soldiers  of  the  Army  of  the  Union;  if,  after 
we  have  clothed  them  in  the  uniform  of  the 
United  States  Army;  if,  after  they  have 
flashed  two  hundred  thousand  bayonets  in 
the  face  of  Jeff.  Davis  and  his  traitor  hordes ; 
if  now,  we  open  the  portals  of  the  American 
ballot-box  to  bloody-handed  traitors,  and  leave 
them  to  the  tender  mercies,  and  hostile  legisla¬ 
tion  of  their  former  owners,  we  shall  commit  the 
crime  of  history,  and  write  upon  the  nation’s 
name,  in  lines  dark  as  night,  and  deep  as  hell,  a 
stigma  which  all  the  ages  cannot  wash  away. 

Let  no  friend  of  the  Republican  party  be  dis¬ 
couraged  through  any  temporary  defeat.  Let 
him  remember,  that  despite  occasional  defeats, 
the  true  center  of  gravity  in  a  republican  Gov¬ 
ernment  like  ours,  is  in  that  power  which  repre¬ 
sents  the  theory  of  liberty  on  which  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  is  based.  Remember  that  the  march 
of  our  republican  army,  has  been  through  storms 
of  persecution,  iron  walls  of  prejudice,  and 
through  defeat  after  defeat  to  final  triumph. 
There  are  men  here  who  remember  the  time, 
when  to  speak  against  slavery,  was  denounced 
as  a  crime  against  society.  It  was  death  for 
Lovejoy,  imprisonment  for  Parker,  and  mob- 
law  and  lynch-law  for  the  early  pioneers  in  the 
cause  of  freedom.  Any  other  sin  might  be  atoned 
for,  but,  clad  in  iron  mail,  slavery  was  secure 
behind  its  impregnable  bulwarks.  Only  in 
1837,  the  blood  of  Elijah  Lovejoy  sprinkled  the 
soil  of  my  own  State,  while  bravely  defending 
his  press  against  an  infuriated  mob.  But  from 
that  blood  men  sprang,  as  Minerva  from  the  head 
of  Jupiter,  full  armed  with  buckler, lance,  spear, 
and  helmet  of  living  truth,  to  fire  the  world 
against  the  accursed  system  of  human  bondage. 
Only  in  1849,  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature 
of  my  own  State,  I  introduced  a  resolution  to 
abolish  the  slave  traffic  in  the  District  of  Col¬ 
umbia,  and  it  was  voted  down  by  an  over¬ 
whelming  majority.  I  remember  well  the  time 
when  it  was  just  as  unpopular  to  advocate  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  traffic  in  this  District, 
where  men  were  sold  upon  the  auction  block, 
and  shook  their  chains  in  the  face  of  the  Capi¬ 


tol,  as  it  is  now  to  advocate  the  passage  of  an 
act  by  Congress,  where  the  States  have  failed  to 
secure  suffrage  in  every  State  in  the  Union. 
Twice  has  it  been  my  pleasure  to  witness  these 
colored  men,  in  all  the  dignity  of  enfranchised 
manhood,  march  to  the  polls  and  rescue  this 
capital  from  the  long  dominion  of  copperheads 
and  a  slave  oligarchy.  How  long  since  statutes 
of  the  States  were  black  with  cruel  legislation, 
expelling  these  colored  men  from  the  States, 
and  subjecting  them,  for  small  or  no  offenses,  to 
the  penitentiary,  jail,  and  the  whipping-post? 
In  my  message  of  1865  to  the  Legislature  of 
Illinois,  I  called  upon  it  to  sweep  them  from 
the  statute-book,  with  a  swift,  resistless  hand, 
and  they  did  it,  leaving  not  a  section  to  mar  and 
darken  the  face  of  the  revised  statutes  of  that 
great  State.  You  remember,  that  when  in  1862, 
Mr.  Lincoln  issued  that  conditional  proclama¬ 
tion  of  emancipation,  the  Democratic  party 
rallied  and  carried  almost  every  State.  But  we 
did  not  give  up  ;  defeat  did  not  hurt.  Like 
the  bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter,  it  roused  the 
nation,  and  we  gloriously  triumphed  in  the  re- 
election  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  And  now,  through 
all  these  defeats  and  triumphs  we  reach  the 
final  great  consummation,  the  complexion  to 
which  it  must  come  at  last,  the  summing  up  of 
the  whole  matter,  the  simple  freedom  and 
equality  of  all  men,  the  enfranchisement  of  all 
men  made  in  the  image  of  God,  to  a  perfect 
and  universal  equality  of  rights. 

And,  sir,  do  you  suppose  we  will  falter 
before  taking  this  last  step.  The  true-hearted 
Republican  is  never  deterred  by  election  re¬ 
turns.  He  expects  some  defeats.  He  expects 
to  triumph  amid  the  storms  of  defeat,  as  well 
as  in  the  sunshine  of  victory.  I  hail  it,  not  as 
a  defeat,  but  as  a  glorious  harbinger  of  victory, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  timidity  of  politicians 
in  Ohio,  two  hundred  and  sixteen  thousand 
freemen  dashed  away  their  prejudices,  and 
voted  for  suffrage  ;  not  as  a  defeat,  but  as  the 
herald,  the  John  the  Baptist,  the  “  prepare-ye- 
the-way”  of  speedy,  glorious,  and  final  victory. 

The  shortest  way  to  reconstruction  is  the 
simplest,  the  plainest,  the  easiest ;  and  the  only 
way  is  the  straightforward  road  to  the  impartial 
and  equal  rights  of  all  men. 

I  believe  in  a  special  providence  in  the  affairs 
of  men  as  well  as  of  nations.  I  believe,  coloni¬ 
zation,  emigration,  and  the  march  of  empire 
having  completed  the  circle  of  the  globe,  that 
upon  this  North  American  continent,  between 
the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific,  is  to  be  “Time’s 
noblest  empire — the  last.”  I  believe  that  this 
is  the  chosen  nation  of  Heaven,  where  the 
experiment  of  the  self-government  of  man  is 
to  be  made.  I  believe  that  light  from  Heaven 
blazed  along  the  pathway  of  the  Mayflower,  and 
guided  our  fathers  through  the  storms  of  revo¬ 
lutionary  preparation  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  I  believe  that  God  meant  that 
we  should  highly  appreciate  our  privileges  by 
making  them  cost  dearly ;  I  believe  that  He 
gave  us  slavery,  with  all  of  its  accursed  ugliness 


16 


and  deformity,  as  the  appalling  contrast  to  the 
beauties  and  blessings  of  liberty.  I  believe 
that  He  thrust  across  our  path  the  Ethiopian, 
that  we  might  learn  that  all  men,  without 
regard  to  color  or  the  accident  of  birth,  are 
brothers,  and  that  of  one  blood  are  all  the  peo¬ 
ple  that  dwell  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  I 
believe  He  gave  us  Lincoln  as  He  had  given  us 
Washington — Lincoln  so  good,  so  grand,  and 
so  great — as  an  example  for  statesmanship, 
and  that  from  his  martyrdom  should  spring  the 
seed  of  the  church,  the  gospel  of  liberty,  and 
human  rights. 

And,  in  a  word,  that  in  all  these  providences, 
sad  experiences,  fearful  wars,  prejudices  of 
caste,  virtues,  and  wickedness  of  rulers,  “  God 
moves  in  a  mysterious  way  His  wonders  to  per- 
orm,”  and  is  leading  us  through  the  red  sea  of 
trouble  and  the  wilderness,  to  a  bright  Canaan 


of  national  deliverance.  Having  solved  the 
problem  of  the  ages,  the  equality  and  brother¬ 
hood  of  the  race  of  man,  and  vindicated  his 
eternal  justice,  this  nation  will  move  forward 
in  the  van  of  material  progress  and  Christian 
civilization,  and  scale  height  after  height  of 
power,  glory,  and  grandeur,  such  as  no  people 
in  the  world  has  ever  yet  achieved. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  not  gone  one  solitary 
step  further  than  I  thought  it  was  necessary  for 
me  to  go  for  the  best  interests  of  my  country. 
I  do  not  antagonize  the  Republican  platform. 
I  leave  the  question  of  suffrage  where  the  Con¬ 
stitution  leaves  it,  with  the  States  in  the  first 
instance,  but  I  reserve  the  power  to  the  Con¬ 
gress  of  the  United  States,  contained  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  laws 
necessary  and  proper,  to  see  that  every  State 
has  a  republican  form  of  government. 


